Michelle Marchese, CSC Docket No. 2019-3432

Appellant's argumentMichelle Marchese requests reconsideration of the attached fina! decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) rendered on May 22, 2019, denying her appeal to submit a late application for the Supervising Family Service Specialist 2 (SFSS2) (PS4837K), Department of Children and Families (DCF), examination.

BackgroundBy way of background, as set forth in the prior decision, the appellant explained that she had been experiencing stress since 2013, when her mother was diagnosed with cancer. She was also managing a busy workload which caused her to mistakenly apply for the higher-level supervisory examination of Supervising Family Service Specialist 1 (SFSS1) (PS4823K), DCF, which the Division of Agency Services determined that she was below the minimum requirements in experience. The Commission found that the petitioner's argument regarding personal circumstances in dealing with the health issues of a family member and her job functions during the filing period was insufficient to overcome her failure to apply for the correct examination. Therefore, the Commission denied the petitioner's appeal.

Appellant's argumentIn her request for reconsideration, the petitioner reiterates the arguments of why she should be permitted to submit a late application for the subject examination. She maintains that she successfully applied for a previous supervisory examination in 2015. The petitioner also asserts that she recently became aware that a co-worker, who never applied for and/or paid the application fee, was mistakenly given the opportunity to take the subject examination that was administered on May 4, 2019. It is noted that the petitioner does not identify the co-worker hy name. The petitioner argues that this supports her claim that anyone can make a mistake. She thus urges the Commission to reconsider its decision.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.d.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which the Commission may reconsider a prior decision. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error has occurred, or present new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the case and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding. A review of the record in the instant matter reveals that reconsideration is not justified.

AnalysisThe petitioner reiterates that her extenuating personal circumstances should have been taken into consideration as justification for why she applied for the incorrect examination. In addition, the petitioner now asserts that she recently became aware that a co-worker who never applied for and/or paid the application fee was allowed to take the subject examination held on May 4, 2019. She believes an error may have occurred, which allowed that individual an opportunity to take the subject examination.

However, the petitioner has not presented any new evidence that would change the outcome of her case. She reiterates her arguments as to why she should be allowed to file a late application which the Commission found insufficient. In that regard, as set forth in the Commission's prior decision, over 900 hundred applicants filed for the correct examination by the closing date. Further, the petitioner has not shown that a clear material error occurred on the part of the Commission that allowed an individual, who did not apply for and/or pay the application fee to sit for the subject examination. The appellant does not identify this individual and whether her co-worker has similar circumstances. Nonetheless, if an error occurred in that regard, it does not present a sufficient reason to allow her to file for the subject examination. Accordingly, the Commission finds no grounds on which to grant reconsideration of its prior decision.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request for reconsideration be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.